Comments on: Despite Gore's Nobel Climate Not Top Issue

Former VP In An Effective Advocate, But The American Public Focuses On More Iraq, Health Care

[taotxzen]

what of Iran''''s involvement? What of Putin''''s friendship with Iran? Look at the whole picture my friend.

Posted by katg21

Iran is there to protect its own interest; if a hostile regime invaded Mexico do you think that we would do the same? That is what happens when you go in and destabilize an entire country. The neighbors, Saudis, Syrians and Iranians all rush in to protect their interest. Again, I will remind you that the majority of insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia. But since Bush and the Saudis are one in the same we are taking their side against the Iranians, another reason that Iran feels threatened by the US.

Remember who fed you a steady diet of lies to get us into this quagmire; you are very naive to believe their spin on Iran now.

[katg21]

You want to stay in Iraq and try to chase down Al Qaeda in Iraq...Posted by taotxzen

YES, this goes way further than AlQaeda now! Sure they are there but what of Iran''s involvement? What of Putin''s friendship with Iran? Look at the whole picture my friend. We are in Iraq because it puts us in the perfect position to deal with a much bigger problem. Why do you think Iran is supplying insurgents with the weapons that are killing our soldiers? They want us out of there. You''ll never get your wish, Democrats won''t take the troops out of Iraq either. You dems keep screaming that this is a war based on oil...well you''re right. We are there to protect Iraq''s oil from those who would use it for their own gain which is to control the region. we can''t afford to let that happen.

[taotxzen]

(cont)

But there was a catch: The war hadn''t started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.
At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.
The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

[taotxzen]

badaxmofo

At least you got my name right.

Actually it started in Sept 2002:

Published on Thursday, June 2, 2005

The Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun

How Bush Began the Iraq Invasion Before He Went to Congress or the UN

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein''s major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon''s goal was clear: Destroy Iraq''s ability to resist. This was war.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

There''s a breathtaking chutzpah about this attempt to put the blame on the intelligence agencies. It brings to mind the joke about the boy who killed his parents, then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he''s an orphan. Recall that all through 2002, when the White House and Pentagon were preparing to invade Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld were annoyed that the CIA was stubbornly failing to find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. The New York Times reported in October 2002 that Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith had set up their own small intelligence shop in the Pentagon to pore over raw intelligence, looking for connections that the CIA had obviously missed. Meanwhile, Cheney was making trips to Langley, applying pressure at the source.

[taotxzen]

Oct. 8, 2004
War Without Reason
The total collapse of Bush''s arguments for invading Iraq.

By Fred Kaplan

The official rationales for the war in Iraq now lie in tatters. Earlier in the week, the CIA and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Saddam Hussein had no links to al-Qaida. Yesterday, George W. Bush and *** Cheney accepted the findings of Charles Duelfer, their chief weapons inspector, that Saddam didn''t have WMD after all.
The Duelfer report, President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Yet, he quickly added, going to war was still the right%u2014the necessary%u2014course of action.
Cheney, speaking in Miami, went further, claiming that the Duelfer report bolstered the case for war. "Delay, defer, wait," he said, "wasn''t an option."
Actually, the Duelfer report states that Saddam Hussein did not have the means. It concludes that, after the 1991 war, "Iraq''s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapon program progressively decayed." Iraq destroyed its chemical-weapons stockpile in ''91, and "there is no credible indication that Baghdad resumed production." The biological-weapons program was "put on the shelf" after the last facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in 1996.

[taotxzen]

July 3, 2003


Bush administration pushed for proof linking Saddam, al-Qaida

By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, but the agency found no proof, according to an internal CIA intelligence review.
The review also reaffirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies had no credible reports that Saddam knew in advance about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Some members of Congress and other critics contend that the Bush administration, in arguing for military action against Iraq, exaggerated the links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden''s terrorist network.

[taotxzen]

May 29, 2003

Bush: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They''re illegal. They''re against the United Nations resolutions, and we''ve so far discovered two. And we''ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven''t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they''re wrong, we found them.%u201D

[taotxzen]

Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11.

Mudbrain

What color is the sky, in your world?

[one_american]

For the Al Gore lovers:

The New York Times'' own comprehensive report shows Bush would have won the 2000 election, regardless of the Supreme Court decision.

Ford Fessenden and John Broder from November 12, 2001:

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year''s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.


"Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court''s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court."

Gore never won the election, despite all the liberal propaganda saying otherwise.

Another liberal lie is dead.